B. 2AC Time and Strat skew—risks the rope-a-dope and disincentivizes offense

Counter interpretation—they get ONE UNconditional option or the Status Quo

1AR CI [0:06]

Conditionality is bad—

This HAS to be a voting issue because rejecting the argument IS WHAT CONDITIONALITY IS.

1AR Ethics [0:22]

Ethical Coherence—the whole value of the aff is that it takes an ABSOLUTE, and thus UNCONDITIONAL responsibility toward the Other. Advocacy skills are uniquely key here—you should incentivize 1NC CONSISTANCY so we’ll become effective advocates for material change—that’s the most real world and is the ONLY portable skill.

[Outweighs/turns their best source of offense]

This is an impact turn to all their NEG FLEX arguments—empirics prove teams don’t need multiple condo worlds and using TRICKS to discourage ethical responsibility is a massive DA to their interp.

1AR Skew [0:20]

The 1NC irreparably skewed the most important aff speech and our only chance for offense—

A. Strategy—we can’t read addons to answer the K because the CP would solve them—disincentivizes substantive offense and even prevents us from straight turning DAs—internal link turns 2AC skills

B. Time—negative flexability means the 2AC needs to prepare for a virtually infinite number of possible block combinations—exascerbates time disparities and makes the 2AC impossible.

[Outweighs/turns their best source of offense]

A2

Severance Perms

1. [Explain why your perm isn’t severance]

2. Severance perms are a still a test of competitiveness and not an advocacy of the affirmative.

3. Key to aff ground – all perms other than “do both” would be severance and that’s unfair to the aff because they’re key to checking back unpredictable cp’s/k’s.

C. Infinitely regressive—infinite number of possible conditions and we can’t get offense vs all of them

No Solvency Advocate Bad [0:37]

Destroys education

Unpredictable texts – without a solvency advocate, the neg can fiat anything which kills real world education because they can just create an artificial counterplan which is bad for debate because they fiat competitiveness.

Not real world – the cp would never be presented before congress if no one agreed it was a good idea.

Ground –

Moving target – without a stable plan text the neg can always shift advocacies by the 2NR which kills aff strategy from the 2AC.

Steals aff answers – we can’t indict their solvency evidence because there is none specific to their counterplan which is key to impact calc and determining whether the counterplan solves.

Not reciprocal – aff is forced to present a plan steeped in the literature base of the resolution. Not forcing the neg to present a counterplan with a solvency advocate is unfair to the aff.

Err aff on theory – neg gets the block and can control the outcome of the debate by strategically picking certain arguments.